User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A little Keeshond puppy

Archive of my Did You Knows

The wise page

Hobby Horse Polo

Dear Yngvadottir, I need someone confirming that I didnt fake the rules and quotes based on German sources in Hobby Horse Polo ;) Its a DYK candidate, you told me you dont take part there any more, but I believe you will have some fun while having a look on the article. Serten (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sporfle. "Die unglaublich ästhetische Einheit zwischen Mensch und Tier"?! I am at work and when I get home I have to finish my own current draft quickly because there is a biography edit-a-thon at WMF in San Francisco and I don't want anyone there wasting time writing about the same person from zero, nor do I want to go! But I'll see what I can do, starting with a copyedit and more bibliographic info about the press clippings there. Have you thought of also asking De728631? or Drmies? I do see you already have a check mark though. OK, back to work, will see what I can do ... Yngvadottir (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631 ist the right one! Let me ask him. All the best in frisco. Serten (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: I won't be going to Frisco, it's at the WMF :-) I have to pack up the laptop soon now, but you have adequate referencing on the game; however, unless you have a 3rd-party reference that actually says there is no drink penalty in the Swiss rules, your hook is synthesis. So I suggest a new ALT:

... that there are two rule variants of Hobby Horse Polo, one of which imposes a drink penalty for fouls, the other of which requires loud neighing for a goal to count?

gottago Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thnx! Serten (talk)

Punitive sherries

More appropriate punishment

Il est reçu le 1 er février 1648 membre fondateur de l' Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture . What is that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'On 1 February 1648 he was accepted as a founding member of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture' (on which there is doubtless an article at a title mnus "royal"). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly doubt this conversation is about Hobby Horse Polo. Either confine to the allowed subject or take another punitive sherry. Sitzenmachen!. Serten (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A frugal Swabian is offering a drink? Who'd have thought?! ;) I'll take one of those. Proscht! De728631 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Frugal Swaben? You take another one Baden vorn! Serten (talk)

Oh, big old faux pas. Let me see then, perhaps I should go with a sip of ice wine from Baden. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was very surprised when I discovered that what was to our right was not one big blob called "Germany". I'm still having a hard time figuring out though why all those areas feel the need to be different--different foods, different wines, different beers, different treatments of the livestock. I mean, Baden, Schwabia, Bavaria, Thuringia--are you really all that different? I'll make allowances for the Fischkopfe, since they could apply for honorary Dutch-ship. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dododaky went online ;) Serten (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that's my favourite drink. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, never heard of that guy before. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Taksen's DYK?

He never got a notification, looks like it..... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taksen&action=history What shall we do+ why? Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC) That was silly. I have to add it, but how. I copy from Drmies, and add. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor Taksen! That's so silly - I had asked to be removed from those, and for Taksen to take my place. It was this edit by Hawkeye7, who did not include all the names listed at the nomination template. Thanks for noticing and remedying. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the the diff and I did copy all the credits from the nomination to the prep area:

•   Man Writing a Letter – Drmies (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
•   Man Writing a Letter – Yngvadottir (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
•   Nom credit: Hafspajen (give)
•   Woman Reading a Letter – Drmies (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
•   Woman Reading a Letter – Yngvadottir (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
•   Nom credit: Hafspajen (give)

What happened was that you added the name to the top but not to the only part that counts, the templates below, that get copied to the prep area. When I am marking up a prep area, the templates are highlighted in yellow for me to copy while the text is not. I failed to notice the mistake. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GOOug, hooug , my mistake. Hope it is OK I gave him the template I copied... or? Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Twitterature

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vilhelm Grønbech, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Darwin and Friedrich Schlegel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Unneccessary POV claim w edit of Midnight Rider for Oct 16

For diff please go look at the sourced OSHA report referenced in article and here [1] It was not POV but how OSHA specifically defines their different violations. I actually left off willful. OSHA Quote:"Production company for "Midnight Rider" film cited for willful and serious safety violations following worker fatality and injuries". One violation was defined technically as "willful" and one as "serious". So this was not POV and clearly sourced. I would prefer not to "revert" as there was recently a dramatic attempt to vandalize the page with chomping and reverts that elevated to the wiki admin page and a userid and two sockpuppets being banned. Hopefully you do not mind restoring the "serious" as it is actually very relevant in this context. DFinmitre (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@DFinmitre: I still think it's better to leave it off; this is an indictment (the POV of the prosecutor if it goes to court, if you like), there will always be adjustments between this and the sentence or out-of-court settlement, and there is no need to belabor the seriousness of what happened. The section actually badly needs to be cut down - there is heavy duplication - and if it's tightened up in that way, the stark facts will jump off the page with all the more clarity. If you disagree, consider quoting as you did above; I still think that would be overkill at this stage, but if you still feel we need to reflect the OSHA document down to the adjectives, then a direct quote is the way to go. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I appreciate your thoughts, but there are two points on this issue. First it is clearly not POV as you keep asserting, and maybe adding quotes "serious and willful" would make that more clear. These are very specific "types" of OSHA citations. Further it is not an "indictment" by a "prosecutor", as that is a totally separate criminal case by the Wayne County, GA District Attorney. I agree it can be a bit confusing to those who have not read the full article and many of the references, it is a very complicated series of events and multiple conflicting statements by many individuals and corporations. OSHA is a federal agency and these "willful and serious" citations have yet to have even been filed as official complaints as is explained in the OSHA section below. The accused producer has yet to be convicted of anything so in this context it is very relevant as to why New York Marine Insurance chose to revoke their insurance policy and refuse paying the loss, which led to the lawsuit referenced and Miller's claims that they should. This is all highly relevant as to why production was halted, thus why it is in this section despite more details in a later section. If you change the context of the serious OSHA violation to a minor citation, which your action did, it will leave the reader questioning why New York Marine took what is a substantial action against the production. This lack of information thus favors Film Allman claims against NY Marine. While I agree the article could use some clarification and some elements moved, which fortunately is gradually happening with a group of editors, all of these elements are relevant as to why the production was delayed, specifically changed, likely into a whole new film, that would no longer be Midnight Rider, and likely halted completely. This is all every relevant to the production section and would actually create confusion and favor one disputing party over others if chopping took place without strong familiarity with the article. Again I suggest "willful and serious" are highly contextual to this section and not POV but technical descriptions and I would be in agreement with your suggestion of putting them in quotes. Would you agree with this?DFinmitre (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on what you think the article needs, yes, you do need to quote it. However, do take a step back and realize the article is an overview of information about the film, not a blow-by-blow of the legal situation. (Not including the word "major", for example, does not imply it was minor.) It has indeed not yet reached conviction; there are still several possibilities for what will happen; and nothing should be said twice, or the reader is likely to start skimming. I would advise you to shorten it quite a lot, while keeping the refs. It will then be easier both to read and to update, and the reader will be able to look at the refs for more detail. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statement "Based on what you think the article needs" implies you do not agree with me, which is established by your further major/minor argument that removing the word "serious" does not change the relevance of the OSHA citation as it directly relates to what cut off funding and halted the film. Since we can not reach concensus on this issue, I will refrain for now from reverting your edit. Although I find the discussion of the overall article interesting and worthy of discussion, it really should be a separate discussion and really should be on the article talk page for all of the editors, as I clearly can not act or speak on their behalf. My argument here is that your stated reason for your edit "Unnecessary POV" was not actually correct in this case due the unique technical nature of the word "serious" in that it was neither the POV opinion of the editor or the writer of the published document from OSHA. The word was in fact a descriptive term to specify a much high level of citation than a general one. There are no minor "OSHA violations" as far as I am aware, just that some are elevated from citation to "willful citation" or "serious citation" that have very significant and serious legal implications. Lesser citations likely would not have been significant enough for NY Marine to justify dropping the insurance policy for Film Allman LLC which thus halted the restart of the film in LA, which is very relevant to the film. Do you still disagree with this argument on your assertion of POV?DFinmitre (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think in Wikipedia's voice it lays undue weight on the matter (which is a form of POV), and as I say, I think further that the article should go into much less detail about accusations and legal claims. Since you disagree on that matter of emphasis, I do think you should convert it to a quotation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with you in my first response that the quotes would be more clear, but am hesitant to revert without concensus due to the highly controversial nature of the page. Your argument of "undue weight" would not apply when this is not an adjective, and I agree that would be clarified with quotes, but a clearly cited technical term that is highly relevant to why the film was halted. Frankly your edit creates an incorrect POV, implying the OSHA citation was similar to the many that film productions offen receive that would not justify canceling insurance. Again your arguments of what the group of editors should do for the article in general are not relevant to this edit and should be made on the article talk page, not directed at me individually. It would likely be an interesting and informative discussion.DFinmitre (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You have my permission to copy over this entire section to the article talk page, but I do think BRD applies, and since it's important in your view to preserve the terminology in its entirety, I do think you should reinstate the modifiers as part of making it a quotation. I don't see how anyone could fault you on that, especially since you see it as required for accuracy. I don't see the applicability on this narrowly defined point of the argument that the topic is so contentious that consensus on the talk page is required - and that's why I haven't taken the issue to the talk page myself. What I think should be raised at the talk page is the degree of legal detail overall, in particular the repetition. The article is not in a legal journal. I don't consider the article concerning enough in its present form to broach that there myself - if I had, I would have edited it much more boldly - but I'm happy to see my opinion presented by copying of this conversation over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable response, and I agree with you our discussion here does not need to be on the article talk page. Please be aware I do not disagree the article is in need of refinement, however I disagree with some of your assertions of how it should be refined, and it is that I suggest you broach on the talk page. Cheers DFinmitre (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eminent Geman painter lacking article.

Le Chien de la famille

Adolf. [2] HELP! Adolf Eberle - Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(For the talkpage stalkers: Adolf Eberle). I like the dackels ... but that article is ripped out of a very old encyclopedia, and is pretty short. I'll have to hunt for additional sources, I returned the expressionist books to the library and can't go there tomorrow, and right now I am badly late for bed. I'll see what I can do, but don't hold your breath. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

..Like this it reminds me of the village I visited when I was little... Hafspajen (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Looks like our fried Serten has a little problem with a silent editor. Hafspajen (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked between work tasks and left him a stiff note rather than a template. Hopefully that will do the trick. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Adolf Eberle's paintings
• 
  Musikalische Unterhaltung auf der Alm 1914
• 
  Le Chasseur et la jeune fille avec des teckels
• 
  Die Naturkunde-Stunde
• 
  The day's bag

• @Hafspajen: Adolf Eberle. Adequate refs but not much info, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Great job, Yngvadottir!! You mean no DYK? Hafspajen (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No DYK :-) And no space in the article for a huge gallery either, which I regret. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Haloo allo, I asked for the article the put the paintings in. I can pack them, if you are happier. At leastthe ones on your talk!!! Hafspajen (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, and I really tried to find out more about him to make space, but wasn't able to. Where are you going to fit it? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here and there, like after the selected work list Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many

This is an insane number of citation needed, for no particular use, since the facts are not contoversial. This is exacly what I meant when I argued about the -anything- thing. One has to tagg controversial facts not just sprinkle taggs arround all over the article, for no specific reason. Hafspajen (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - however, the one my eye lit on first was indeed problematic, an unattributed direct quote about Léon Bonnat, and I wound up sourcing it at his article and then introducing the same citation in the Bonnat article. I see you've also been adding sources. Is there a talk page section? The editor who added all those citation neededs should really have started one. Whether they did or not, I think you should post there a fuller version of your argument that a lot of this is not disputed, before removing some of the tags. However, the article was vastly under-referenced, and I suspect draws heavily on reference works like the one I found to be an undisclosed source in the Bonnat article, and there may be copyvio. So reference and rephrase what you can. The editor went about this the wrong way, a sloppy way that is not the best or fastest way to get the article fixed. Thanks for noticing it and working on it. This is the kind of article schoolkids look to for information. And now I must start preparing for bed, sorry :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No discussion, no. I removed only one saying citation needed for the sentence they are using naked models when a picture beside depict one. I think she just put a citation needed at the end of every paragraph. Just mischief, using fully valid policy. Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There were places that needed citations. So thank you for fixing those. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I made this already a few years ago. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that's cute and Hafspajen should definitely use it. But I've never been accused of having common sense :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Using! Thanks! Hafspajen (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cairn in Snow... translation from German - well actually not. Something, very unfinished. . Hafspajen (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Now wikilinked to the German and the French and I've done a little tweaking including making the title italic. Soon for bed, sadly - work tonight. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• you Oak? Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I certainly like oaks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Yngvadottir, Thank you for taking out the time for advising and guiding me in the right direction. I'll do my best again and contribute here whenever I can. Best Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

Your unfair comment at AN/I, invoking my name only to insult me in a factually false fashion regarding a matter that I have nothing to do with, is noted. Thank you for alerting me to it, although what purpose you think it served, I suspect I will never know. I suspect you will never know either. Bizarrely, and the reason that I'm responding at all, on the specific factual issue I agree with you completely and have never ever in any situation nor under any circumstances suggested anything whatsoever to the contrary. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider whether random hostility towards me, misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views, is the path to happiness. I suspect, again, that it is not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jimbo Wales: We wisely have a rule that people substantially mentioned in an AN/I discussion should be notified, and that an echo ping does not suffice (I'm sure you of all people get a huge number of pings, and besides I flubbed your handle). My thought was that you might wish either to correct the account that was given there of your suggestion - I was unable to find it on your user talk, possibly it was in your address at the con - or engage the point I raised about it? I'm glad I violated your sanctum since you say I have committed a factual falsity.

As for my motivation, I recommend you follow policy and not speculate about that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Queen of Sheba

I've already blocked that editor once, are you saying he still doesn't understand our copyvio policy (please ping me or add TB to my talk page when you reply). THanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: He's railing against it in edit summaries and, now that he's finally posted at a talk page, in his edit there, claiming that inaccurate paraphrases are being used out of an exaggerated fear of contravening copyright. But so far as I know he hasn't been copyvioing again - just edit warring and at some editors' request I've been trying to get him to discuss. I gave him a short block; I think the story is pretty clear from his user talk page. Maybe he'll listen better if you also talk to him? He's editing on topics I cannot judge well; some of his work appears to me to be an improvement, although I've told him it would be better if he didn't just cite specialized encyclopedias. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter Moras

Hi there. I created a Moras article, but for some reason it's not showing up when I search for it. Any idea why? Sca (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sca: Walter Moras. Hasn't been deleted or moved ... if you were searching for it on Google, they may simply not have noticed it yet (they tend to notice articles with Google Books links almost immediately—otherwise it can take a couple of days); if you were searching with the Wikipedia search box, it won't auto-fill a new article until next day, there's a bot that has to run first or something. But I assure you it's there :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I was in the Wiki search box — didn't realize there's a delay. Thanks. Sca (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bald eagle at Palais Equitable

Hello, I saw your edit where you reverted my change of Bald Eagle to Bald eagle at Palais Equitable. In my editing to make Wikipedia usage match the MoS, I have been searching for and fixing links to Bald Eagle, which are generally errors. For that reason, I made the change there to keep that page from coming up on the list of work I need to do. Do you have any objection if I revert your reversion? Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Yes, I do. As I stated in my edit summary, the piped link works; there is therefore no reason to retroactively impose the MOS change that was made, just because you are searching for all instances of the usage we previously preferred. The original link was not an error, and it is hidden from the reader (piped). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Hafspajen (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Heh, thanks, actually I'll be working :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, you too :-) Actually I'll be working. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks :), Well wear a mask and cellotape a candle to your forehead –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on wearing black and scaring people. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Yngvadottir:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, you too :-) Unfortunately I'll be working. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you too. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok

Desdemona and Othello, by red Antonio Muñoz Degraín

View from the Artist's Window - brand new only three seconds old.

Hafspajen (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a little tiny bit of work on it. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.. Did you started the scaring people in black clothes? Huh? Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, only on Hallowe'en, local time. I'm leaving you and Xanthy to flesh out Description and themes - sorry for edit conflicting with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You did? Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

>:: That's him. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Mu%C3%B1oz_Degrain

Muñoz Degrain Paisaje del Pardo tras la niebla 1866

Hmm, not hard to read, but lacks sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I imagine it would be enough for a stubb at least ...

Founders of the Ukrainian academy of arts

Found an interesting painter uk:Мурашко Олександр Олександрович.

Hmm, yes ... and he looks like a wild man. Crisco 1492, does this look transferrable to Commons? uk:Файл:Олександр Олександрович Мурашко фото 1905-06.jpg Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

this?

• It claims PD 70, but the author is supposedly unknown. Those do not match; to claim PD 70, we need to know both the author and his/her year of death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, was afraid of something like that. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

<- That'll do, and I see you found a stub. I found some sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page of Bach's church music in Latin

Re. [3] — Please kindly invite Gerda Arendt to update Bach's church music in Latin#Mass in B minor, BWV 232, and related earlier compositions along the lines of the recently updated content of Missa in B minor (Bach). Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see what a friend you lost, Yngvadottir. Francis, I don't know why you come here to ask (Yngvadottir to ask) me something. I updated the Missa, a link is enough, or a short summary. It was like that before you "merged" the Missa to there (where it had never been before), it can be like than again. Will you do it or should I? - Question for all, because of my limited language: does the phase "music in Latin" (music in French ...) make any sense? So far I believed that music is a "language" that transcends languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good; I was going to point out that you would see the ping just as soon as you were free, Gerda. I think the "in Latin" query could best be answered on the talk page of that article, but it doesn't sound odd to me, particularly since Bach is known for church music with German words? (I think ... not my field.) As to the other, I don't believe there's a big rush, WP:NODEADLINE and all that, and I see there's already a discussion with Montanabw on the article talk page. So I would suggest going back there and laying out what should be done next, but that need not mean right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have very limited time today. Thanks for your response. I was simply asking language (not a particular article) about the phase "music in (any) language". We don't have an equivalent phrase in German. It's the text, not the music, which is Latin. I am sure that Bach wrote differently, because he went with the words, but I am not sure if it can be said like that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But German is often much more precise than English, as you know. Do raise the point on the "church music in Latin" talk page; as I say I think it's ok but am no expert. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, helped, will ask there when I have time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi Yngvadottir,

For clarity, I'm not going to start a discussion with other people on your talk page.

In the diff I posted above ([4]) you suggested to report back to you "If the rewrite does not happen promptly,...". Well, it hasn't happened promptly.

I didn't like the obvious WP:FORUMSHOP aspect that led to your admin action, overriding a discussion that was going on at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin, but was prepared to give it a chance because you expressed taking responsibility if it wouldn't work out.

Re. changing the "promptly" to "WP:NODEADLINE" post factum: not nearly good enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I thought and think the rewrite had happened at Missa, BWV 232a, which was subsequently moved to Missa in B minor (Bach)? In fact checking now I see considerable work by Gerda after you placed the "under construction" tag. Whereas your comment above relates to the section in the parent article, Bach's church music in Latin, which you had previously said on the talk page was superior. That is a different task, which is why I reminded you there is no deadline. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why your admin action was so disruptive, and you should have given attention to the discussion that was on the talk page: I pleaded to have the workshop for the update in one place (for clarity: in main namespace, another thing you seem to have missed), not in two places.

Shows the disruption caused by what in policy is called WP:FORUMSHOP: I was not invited to the forum where your admin-imposed solution was designed. You didn't hear any of the parties, except Gerda afaik, and were clear in taking responsability. Now is the moment to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity: I think Gerda understood the signal [5], so I want to close this discussion here. I hope you understood what I meant, that's all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Festina affair

I disagree a bit with your unlinking of the foreign-language Wikipedia pages at that article. However, there is a template, {{Link-interwiki}}, in which one can keep the red links and still link to interwiki articles; if it is fine with you, can I do that? Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added them. Feel free to undo if you don't agree. Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Just got back to my computer; I had thought of those and wondered whether you knew about them. That's fine by me. I suggest next time such a situation arises, just go straight to using those. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)